Re: Object-relational impedence
From: Robert Martin <unclebob_at_objectmentor.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:18:12 -0600
Message-ID: <2008030316181278840-unclebob_at_objectmentorcom>
>
> This is misleading. An association between object A and object B does
> NOT go away just because it is managed via accessors. OOP not only
> doesn't get one away from dealing with things as "structures", but
> uses structures that were discredited in late 60's.
>
> Hiding behind accessors is merely a shell game. setMess and getMess is
> *still* a mess.
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:18:12 -0600
Message-ID: <2008030316181278840-unclebob_at_objectmentorcom>
On 2008-03-03 13:44:07 -0600, topmind <topmind_at_technologist.com> said:
>> Right, the structure of data would be too low-level to be able to capture >> behavior. As in mathematics, in OO the internal structure of objects is >> irrelevant and when considered, then only as an implementation detail to be >> abstracted away. OO deals with the structures of sets of objects exposing >> same behavior and relations between such sets.
>
> This is misleading. An association between object A and object B does
> NOT go away just because it is managed via accessors. OOP not only
> doesn't get one away from dealing with things as "structures", but
> uses structures that were discredited in late 60's.
>
> Hiding behind accessors is merely a shell game. setMess and getMess is
> *still* a mess.
Bryce, he wasn't talking about setters and getters.
-- Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) | email: unclebob_at_objectmentor.com Object Mentor Inc. | blog: www.butunclebob.com The Agile Transition Experts | web: www.objectmentor.com 800-338-6716 |Received on Mon Mar 03 2008 - 23:18:12 CET